CO2 concentration causing global temperature increase

There is no doubt any more: In order to mitigate global warming, the emission of greenhouse gases must be reduced, the sooner the better. This will then lead to a stabilization of the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere - and in the very long term hopefully to a decreasing concentration.

The level at which the greenhouse gas concentration gets stabilized does determine the warming effect, i.e. the temperature increase of the earth's surface and of the oceans.

The following graph shows the relation between the greenhouse gas concentration (expressed as CO2-equivalents) and the resulting average global temperature increase on the surface. The data are drawn from AR4 WGI, Chapter 10.8. [i.e. from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I]". The graph has been taken from Wikipedia.

Temperature increase based on CO2 level

 

The above graphs represents the state of knwledge according to IPCC as per November 2007. The black line in the middle of the range is the most likely relationship, the red line on top and the blue line on the bottom indicate the uncertainty (95% confidence interval). A temperature increase of more than about 2° C will with high likelyhood lead to dramatic effects on the environment. This is the reason why the European community suggests to limit the global warming to max. 2° C. This means according to the above graph limiting the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere to about 450 ppm CO2 equivalents. The current value is about 380 ppm CO2.

Use our global warming simulation program (for Excel or OpenOffice) to simulate your own mitigation scenario - it is surprising to see the effects! 

Comments

global warming

I am doing a report paper on Global warming, cause and effect. If the sea continues to rise, and the glaciers continue to melt, is there any chance that we, our world, may come to have more flooding and more deaths, or will our world, in the furture, ever end? Another concern, is if the temparture rises, lets say about 6 degress, then wouldn't that mean that there would be more wildfires. Would that also mean that if there are more wildfires than the plants would die and if the plants would die they would produce less oxogen? I am just a little concerned and a little curious that in the furture we, our world, may end up dead. Please let me know if i am wrong on some things and right on others, i would gladly love to find out.

The global warming hoax

The graph on the article is provided by the IPCC which is questionable in it's neutrality on the subject (at best). Temps are also based on SURFACE temperatures which are easily influenced by the "heat island" effect since large cities (where many of the temperature readings are taken) tend to soak up heat which reflects erronious readings. While AIR temperature readings (much more accurate) taken over the last ten or so years show that the temperature is either unchanging or has actually dropped by about the same amount as was claimed for an increase over the last 100 years...In other words, the global warming everybody is worried about has been NEUTRALIZED by a drop in the last ten years...This drop is credited to a period of lessening solar activity which we have seen before...it was the mini-iceage which we came out of in the mid 19th century.
You can go to other sites to verify this information more thoroughly, but put simply the cause is increased solar activity after coming out of a short ice age...the effect was a period of general warming which some alarmists have tried to turn into a global crisis which is non-existent.

greenhouse gases causing global warming

You seem to misunderstand the above shown graph: It shows the relation between greenhouse gas concentration and a corresponding warming of the mean temperature on Earth. The graph does not show how much the mean temperature has increased during the past years! Your comment is misplaced.

Up-to-date data of the mean temperature can e.g. be found on the website of the NASA Goddard institute for space studies. It says: "In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."

Global Warming, or global

Global Warming, or global climate change as is the most accurate terminology, is accepted by 98% of scientist worldwide, it is indeniably a real threat, and the only real question is how we can stop it, or if we even can. Over the past 1000 years global temperature has fallen an risen in random fuctuations from ice ages and periods of temperature rise. This fluxuation however has never in the history of mankind come even close to the varation from the norm we see today. Looking at the levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone, we can see a closely tied correlation. Virtually every flux in temperature has followed a fluxuation in the level of greenhouse gases. What we see in the above graph is a small scale peice of this 1000 year graph. It shows that we are truly experiencing an off the scale rise in both temperature and in greenhouse gasses.

John Macabre
Professor of Environmental Study, Royal Saston University.

John Macabre

Where did you get your statistic of 98%? It seems people questions this everyday and all the people I talk with are engineers and scientists.

David

Royal Saston University

Why can I not find a single reference to a "Royal Saston University" on the Internet except for your comment? Is this the University of your Imagination?

Calm down - typo

It should probably read "Royal Aston University". So no big deal, just a typo :-)

Haha...

You're a republican...that's unfortunate.

LOL.

LOL.

Amateur Hoax Specialists

You don't know squat. Stick with the National Science Foundation and the National Research Council.....some of the very best scientists in the USA. Even though many of these scientists are not climate specialists, and imperfect human beings, they are trained and highly qualified to evaluate scientific work. You are not. And you are not qualified....otherwise you would be invited to be with them. You are entitled to your own pompous opinion...as superficially schooled as it is....but you are not entitled to your own facts.

anonymous

yup,you're you're right.Maybe the earth will end up some years after.If we will not do anything to save it.

Global has a huge effect

Global warming has a huge effect on animals in other courties besides the US. Global Warming is a major certin with the earth. Im doing a research project on it and im finding lots of Information on it.
Keri

Global Warming Simulation Program

I used your Global Warming Simulation Program. Interesting results! Your simulation suggests entering the carbon footprint of the average person and seeing what affects are expected. Well, I entered Al Gore's Carbon footprint and there was a EXTREME catastrophic disaster. But I realize that not everyone flys around the world on private jets giving slideshows; so, I entered a more reasonable number. I estimated that the vast majority of the worlds population (centered in the Asian continent) lives a third world existence with a very small carbon footprint. Entering this value shows that there is barely the smallest blip in temperatures that are quickly resolved. So, since the third world population is growing rapidly while the first world gluttons like Al Gore are experienceing a population decline, I figure there is not a problem with global warming at all. I am so glad I visited your website. I shall continue trying to live a lifestyle like Al Gore with a warm assurance in my heart that I am not going to have any perceptable affect on Global Warming. What a relief!

/ sarc off

Your simulation program is worthlessly simplistic and give aberrant results which generally tend to show that no matter what temps dont rise beyond 4 degrees. And when you use growing numbers the CO2 values go whacky rising dramatically followed by a equally dramatic fall off this makes no sense. Try again.

Co2 emissions and global warming simulation

The simulation program does of course have its limits. If you exceed the atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 500 ppm, it should not be used any more.

However, if you keep your input reasonable, you can get results which are in line with the large simuations carried out by IPCC. I recommend you have a look at the results shown in our article "how to mitigate global warming - simulation results".

I suggest you read our article about global warming and personal responsibility - this will hopefully make you change your conclusion about your personal behavior.

to the publisher of The Global Warming Hoax

Global Warming, or global climate change as is the most accurate terminology, is accepted by 98% of scientist worldwide, it is indeniably a real threat, and the only real question is how we can stop it, or if we even can. Over the past 1000 years global temperature has fallen an risen in random fuctuations from ice ages and periods of temperature rise. This fluxuation however has never in the history of mankind come even close to the varation from the norm we see today. Looking at the levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone, we can see a closely tied correlation. Virtually every flux in temperature has followed a fluxuation in the level of greenhouse gases. What we see in the above graph is a small scale peice of this 1000 year graph. It shows that we are truly experiencing an off the scale rise in both temperature and in greenhouse gasses.

John Macabre
Professor of Environmental Study, Royal Saston University.

Aftermath of global warming

If we do not stop with all the pollution and destruction of this earth we will end up paying for it. Hurricanes will become more stronger and deadlier than ever before because we couldnt just stop with all the greenhouse gass emissions and things of that nature.